Romans 5:6-11

 “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (For rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭6‬-‭11‬‬

The NET has the hypotheticals in v 7 as parenthetical. A “although it’s possible in some cases” idea. Schreiner distinguishes between “good” and “righteous” in that “good” means a benefactor. Someone who financially supports someone else or gives amazing gifts to a city. This was part of the culture.

This is a key passage when people discuss “ordinary” vs. “extraordinary” righteousness. This may seem like too deep of a debate/conversation and we should just let Paul say what he wants. But if in ch 1-3 the point was that no one’s righteous, how can someone possibly die for a righteous person? Either we redefine terms between chapters or we’ve missed Paul’s point in earlier chapters. NPP redefines righteousness through everything as being a member of God’s covenant community. 

In either way the build up is to v . 8. God commends love to us. This is one of the only times that God and love are used in the present tense. It’s usually past “God loved.” But here we see that the primary demonstration of God’s continuous, unfailing love is still the cross. Even this passage shows some tension, since the point is God’s love, while Paul also mentions being rescued from wrath. Atonement theories try to reconcile these two, and it’s not an easy discussion. Wrath cannot be the same as the pagan deities, ready to blast everyone who offends them. This is emotional, spontaneous anger and does not describe God.

His is a response to sin. And terms like satisfaction need to be understood in that light, not trying to appease an angry deity with all sorts of rituals. Some would say God’s wrath is not retributive, but restorative. The purpose is not only to judge, annihilate, and punish. The goal is to bring all things back into order under his reign.

Paul’s argument in this passage is from greater to lesser. “Much more then.” If God can love us to the point of Jesus dying for sins, his love can surely rescue us from future judgment. He can save us to the end. Reconciliation is a strong metaphor (doesn’t mean it isn’t reality).

By life: Could be resurrection, but Paul brings this back up in 8:31-39 and this could refer to Jesus’ current intercession ministry.